Looks like it will be hard to determine that Paul Storr, on his own senses, went on producing Briquets, unless factual evidence is found out there; not just by association of ideas.
Whether Thurkle made silver (and other metal) hilts, these seems (to me) that were 'one of a kind' examples, not a production in numbers. Then thinking of Storr, a silversmith Guru; to make a (one) sword you need an atelier (workshop); to cast a number of brass hilts for an army contract you need a factory... and a different attitude, i guess.
On the other hand, while joining two (or more) letters in a cartouche of a certain shape may give an idea of a determined silver smith mark, this is a recurrent procedure; their "trick" to distinguish one from the other, is basically the detail within the cartouche form. Even rectangles may be seen "by the dozen"; Storr himself registered a few different ones.


.

Fernando, thank you! That was exactly what I was looking for, examples of the 'touch mark' of the silversmiths. The rectangular cartouche enclosing the maker's initials just as I showed with the Thurkle example in my previous post was placed to illustrate the convention of doing this with silver smiths and in the time period late 18th into 19th and surely considerably beyond.

As you noted earlier, there is profoundly no way anyone could possibly be aware of all makers marks, touch marks, punzones etc. as there was not as much consistency as one would like to imagine. It has been said that as makers mark stamps wore out or broke, it was not necessarily the case that an exact copy would be the replacement.
In many articles on sword examples such anomalies as flaws in the punches or stamps were strong indicators of authenticity in examining individual swords, just as the case in authenticating mint marks on coins.

With the possibility of a silver smith such as Paul Storr handling a contract of brass hilts for government supply of munitions grade hangers seems heightened by the facts that he was a hilt maker, and he was indeed running a factory for his partner.

My idea has been, this is not a single sword made on a whim by a famed silver smith, but a contract of indeterminate number of munitions grade swords. The suggestions are that this type of hilt or in fact sword did not exist in British other ranks because of the confusing representation (as per Robson, 1996) of the so called Spanish pattern, the 'pioneer' pattern hangers shown in art of 1813,15 for artillery, seem to compellingly sate the case.
However, with the degree of inconsistency in government and ordnance protocol and procurement of the periods from 1780s through the Napoleonic wars, the notion of a singular contract of a number of swords such as this does not seem unreasonable.

The best evidence we have of such a possibility is the examples I have shown from highly reputable arms authors (Blair, 1962 and Wilkinson Latham 1966) which clearly show these brass (French infantry style) briquets as British.
The example in Wilkinson-Latham (1966) implies a name on the blade may be Trotter, an English cutler 1814-20.
Storr ran the factory 1807-1819.
If he oversaw such a singular contract, perhaps in special arrangement with the Crown (the Prince Regent was keen on military matters, indeed having a number of sabers made for his cavalry regiment)......does iit not seem possible Storr might have placed his 'touch mark' in these hilts, even though brass?
We know that Thurkle and others did so even on hilts that were NOT silver.

This hanger is not a single one off sword, but I think a survivor of possibly a defined number of these 'European' style briquets (not just French) that may have been made by Paul Storr, a silver smith strongly connected to the Crown during the Napoleonic wars period.

Thank you Fernando for helping keep this investigation fluid, as I know I am learning a lot, even if my theory ends up not being proven.

All the briquets shown so far have had D-guards.
Here's one they made earlier:
(1789)

Thanks Wayne, all of which briquets? Who they?
Is this British or French?
Interesting pommel capstan or fixture.

Just to ramble a bit further, as have been locked in this pile of books and notes it seems hopelessly, and cannot let this dilemma go.

I looked again at the Wilkinson-Latham (op. cit 1966) reference, and on p.38, he notes that '...information on swords for artillery and other ranks is very sparse and contradictory'. !!!! ya think? :)

Further, '...artillery privates, later to be called gunners are shown by Col. Charles Hamilton Smith in his DRAWINGS in 1814 as armed with a brass hilted artillery hanger (plate66) which it appears they carried until 1853".



Moving to 1975, with Robson (op. cit. p.154) he notes,
"...in the early years of the 19th c. ordinary artllerymen were armed with a SHORT CURVED SWORD with a straight brass knucklebow hilt closely similar to the FRENCH ARTILLERY SWORD (BRIQUET) of ANIX and ANXI (1801-03).

Here he then notes the sword as same as Denis Dighton 1813 and Charles Hamiliton Smith 1815, both specifically titled and illustrating the 'Spanish pattern' sword.

When Wilkinson-Latham described his 'FOOT ARTILLERY GUNNERS' hanger of c.1814, he notes the Charles Hamiliton Smith DRAWINGS......but does NOT specify the title.

SO:
Could there be OTHER Charles Hamiliton Smith 'drawings'? which Wilkinson-Latham was referring to?

In 1794 there were corps of captains commissaries and drivers to provide drivers and teams for the field guns. In 1793 the Royal Horse Artillery already had its own horseand teams for each troop. In 1801 this corps was replaced by corps of gunner drivers. The Royal Artillery were referred to colloquially as 'the gunners' (as opposed to Royal Horse Artillery who carried cavalry pattern swords).

As Paul Storr, per the plate Fernando shows, used a rectangular touch mark registered 1793 (as on my example), is it reasonable to think that perhaps hangers of that of my example were in use by 'gunners' (possibly the drivers moving the guns) from 1793 until the advent of the Spanish pattern (sometime pre 1813 probably about the time of beginning the Peninsular campaigns). Since the Spanish pattern is much like the example Fernando shows in previous post, possibly then was the transfer.

So this COULD be a Paul Storr contract c. 1794 to c. 1807 (?).

The Google source said French, I've read they used that style hilt up to the French Revolution. I used that photo as I couldn't find a photo of mine which apparently is a Spanish Grenadier version that looks just like it, but appears to have a slightly longer and straighter blade (and it's scabbard).

As these had to actually be carried, I also include a photo of the baldric attachment for the scabbards that have a staple rather than a mushroom post to secure them, just to round out the info of this thread.

I found the photo of mine! (below) the odd pommel bit seems to be an extension of the casting to cover an apparently longer tang without extending the grip area. half of it is a threaded cylindrical domed pommel 'keeper'with an end slotted section. It is a bit odd... I note the D-guard one in the baldric photo also has a flat white leather sword knot with a bit of red (tassle/slider?) showing. And the bayonet. Blue uniform? Is it US/UK? Looks a bit like it might be similar to the above artillery photo with the windmills. My scabbard is missing it's chape, has a brass staple on the other side of the throat piece. To complicate matters, the blade has an etched and bordered panel that says 'GRENADIER'. - the French for Grenadier is oddly, 'Grenadier'. ;)

See also https://www.histoire-pour-tous.fr/hi...-francais.html - use google translate to read it in english.

or https://translate.google.com/transla...-francais.html

I am getting rather confused...a bit of information overload...

No Google engine ... only a homemade extract.
 

The article titled "LES BRIQUETS DE L'ANCIEN REGIME/ THE BRIQUETS OF THE OLD REGIME", does not mean that short sabres were titled with such name by then. The one sword first shown shown was actually called model 1767, an evolution of the XVII century Grenadiers sabre.
The nickname Briquet, a term colloquially used in earlier period for more than one thing, incuding pejorative approaches, was only officially applied to short sabres in the Premiere Empire, as my be read in a 1806 regulation.
Meaning that, even the most spread versions like the An XIX (1800-1801) model, are nowadays called Briquets, not in the period.
Am i correct, Wayne ?


.

I am afraid the "touch" is the fineness of noble metals, not the mark of makers ...

" Contrary to what the ordinary citizen often supposes, jewelery pieces are not made of precious metals in their pure state.
In fact, precious metals in that state are very little workable.
If an ordinary wedding ring, for example, were made of fine gold, its resistance to deformation would be so low that the usual day-to-day activities of an ordinary user would be sufficient to constantly damage it.
Therefore, goldsmiths have always had the need to add other metals to the precious metals they worked with, in order to obtain an alloy suitable for the type of work they aimed to produce.
The amount of precious metal in the alloy is translated through the indication of its touch, meaning that the higher the touch of a piece, the greater the content of precious metal per unit of mass of that piece.
Quoting J. Almeida Costa and A. Sampaio e Melo (in Portuguese Dictionary), it can be said, therefore, that touch is the percentage of pure metal in an alloy in which it is fundamental.
The term "title" is also often used in place of touch.


Usually a good sterling silver has a 925/ooo touch... or fineness. The mix is ussually copper. Same criteria goes for gold,

Hi Jim,
I'm a bit stuck here, in more than 50yrs of playing with sharp and pointy's I have never seen a Continental briquet type sword with British issue marks or British regimental marks. I do not claim by any manner that such an item is not out there but if it is it must be the proverbial hen's teeth. However hen's teeth do exist, e.g. the sword in this post, http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...1796+sergeants was confirmed recently by the Royal Armouries as indeed a 1796 pattern nco's sword and it seems the very few examples they have do not have the scabbard, so a scarce item but a known pattern. Privately raised regiments and militia were outfitted by the raiser/s and of course export/commerce was practiced extensively so maybe this is a possibility although I'm not hopeful. Texts and Museums do get things wrong as we all know and in fact looking into your Briquet I delved into the Royal Armouries collections and found a Briquet, museum no IX.1182, tagged as French but it is in fact Swiss as it is described as having a crowned double A which is the Bern Armoury mark so mistakes are still out there. I have attached images of the British sidearms that I know of with brass stirrup hilts.
My Regards,
Norman.

Hi Jim,
I just noticed your Briquet has had the quillion terminal removed. I have a French ANXI sabre with the same modification. Made in Klingenthal, poincons J.A. Kranz inspector 1812, F.L.Lobstein reviser 1804/21, J.G.Bick controller 1812/15. Might be something.
My Regards,
Norman.

Hi Jim,
Here is another ANXI sabre of mine for comparison of a similar vintage to the first and has not been modified. The P.D.L. is a later stamp that signifies Propriete De L'Etat meaning Property of the State and was probably marked as such when it was assigned to the National Guard post 1831.
My Regards,
Norman.

For whatever is worth, Jim's Briquet, potentially not being British production, shows no undeniable evidence of being French, as it does not bear the traditional poinçons, those applied at KLINGENTHAL.
Notwithstanding plenty other casters/makers produced them in non State facilities ... as it appears.

[QUOTE=fernando]I am afraid the "touch" is the fineness of noble metals, not the mark of makers ...

" Contrary to what the ordinary citizen often supposes, jewelery pieces are not made of precious metals in their pure state.
In fact, precious metals in that state are very little workable.
If an ordinary wedding ring, for example, were made of fine gold, its resistance to deformation would be so low that the usual day-to-day activities of an ordinary user would be sufficient to constantly damage it.
Therefore, goldsmiths have always had the need to add other metals to the precious metals they worked with, in order to obtain an alloy suitable for the type of work they aimed to produce.
The amount of precious metal in the alloy is translated through the indication of its touch, meaning that the higher the touch of a piece, the greater the content of precious metal per unit of mass of that piece.
Quoting J. Almeida Costa and A. Sampaio e Melo (in Portuguese Dictionary), it can be said, therefore, that touch is the percentage of pure metal in an alloy in which it is fundamental.
The term "title" is also often used in place of touch.


Usually a good sterling silver has a 925/ooo touch... or fineness. The mix is ussually copper. Same criteria goes for gold,[/QU




EXCELLENT EXPLANATION Fernando!!! Thank you. I clearly had not understood the intent and meaning of the 'touch' in presuming its use as a makers indicator. The dialogue I had read in several references noting the use of the 'mark' of these workers in precious metal ALSO placing IT on non precious metal hilts.
You can see how I would arrive at that perception.

Cast metal hilts , brass, I have not seen others with these initialed cartouches in them. My point was that my example seems to be an anomaly just as its very existence as a type of 'briquet' not in wide use in a time when regulation or standardization was not the case.

True, just like the ubiquitous name we call swords of the renaissance with long narrow blades and complex handguards "Rapiers" when they didn't use that appelation at the time...and the Iberian recurved swords we call 'Falcata' instead of Kopis.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. :)

As long as we all use the same name for these briquet style hilts now, Alles In Ordnung.

(p.s.- Thanks for finding the 'y'. :D )

What a romantic vein, old chum :rolleyes: .

Wow guys!!! These are quite a volley of entries!!! and EXACTLY what I always hope for, great observations with perfectly supported data. Thank you!

Fernando, I have understood that the term briquet was colloquial as I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, which was explained in one of my cited references I believe. Actually the term was minimized or parenthesized if I recall in the descriptive test.

Wayne thanks very much for the additional information and explanations, I agree there is a great deal of information presented and evaluated in the great discourse, so I too am 'blowing circuit breakers'! :)

Norman, again, excellent input and examples well presented. I will be the first to admit I have little experience with French swords. I had never been able to afford the amazing Aries series and I miss Jean Binck's expertise.
The instance you note with the quillon terminal removal is most interesting
though I have trouble understanding such a deliberate and innocuous adjustment.

I can relate to your notes on there not being Continental briquets (of this type) having British markings of any sort, presumably issuance or inspection.
All the poincons all over French swords are these types of administratiive marks of course.

Your notes on the Royal Armouries are telling, and I will say here that it is my impression that the two examples from the 1962 and 1966 references on which I based my identification of my example (over the past 54 years!) did cite the Royal Armouries as one source, National Maritime Museum the other.

Your noting of the error on the 'briquet' (IX1182) being French but actually being Swiss due to Bern armoury marks is concerning. Did the Swiss ever receive French weaponry into their military stores? I have seen instances where markings were regarded Swiss rather than the presumed other origin.

In summary, these are all wonderful facts in rebuttal toward thorough examination of my example, and very much key data which absolutely must be considered in the proper evaluation (again profoundly appreciated).
But, my theory remains that my example which has a rectangular cartouche with the PS initials of Paul Storr (the only maker of the period whose initials correspond) is of a type well known on the Continent (as infantry briquet). The distinct anomaly of a precious metal type 'mark' to a particular maker is British (based on the individual) and only seen in similar context in a similar case (Thurkle).
In these other ranks weapons, notably cast brass examples, this type of stamp or mark in this location on the hilt, does not exist as thus far seen.
The marks that do exist are of course mostly issuance or acceptance poincons.

As Norman has well noted, misteakes of course do exist in records and classifications, which is why I noted the disparity in the references I was citing in the earlier part of this discussion. This pertained primarily to the perception that the only artillery 'briquet' (using the term that typically is mindful to my type hilt despite its collective use) was the 'Spanish pattern'.

In the early days of the efforts toward the standardization and regulation of weaponry in the British army toward the end of the 18th century, the case for other ranks weapons was understandably a maelstrom of inconsistency.
While the 'Spanish' pattern sidearm for artillery is well represented in the art and records c. 1813.
But this selection did not begin until the deployment of forces into the Peninsula in the Napoleonic campaigns.
What of the type sidearm in use in the Royal artillery from c. 1794 (as I noted in earlier post in organization changes) by 'gunners' (again a collective term applied to various participants in the artillery group). ??

The mark in my example is the same as the PS in Paul Storr's registration of 1793. If a contract was issued (as per the protocols of the period by regimental commanders) for a select number of these cheap brass hilt sidearms, why is it not possible that these would not have virtually disappeared in the past two centuries (probably melted down for metal)?
As these were clearly disdained as weapons, not considered collectible by any means nor of stature worthy as trophies etc. what would prevent them being scrapped.
Though Paul Storr was a stellar figure in precious metal art, who would expect his mark in such a pedestrian implement?

As you note Norman, such a weapon would indeed be as rare as 'hens teeth'. You discovered such a case with your NCO's sword and the Royal Armouries.

Thank you again guys, for your patience and taking the time to present arguments in this case. I really do not mean to be obstinate but I really want to seriously evaluate all possibilities in a case which is from a period and situations which were fraught with inconsistency.

Hi Jim,
The Briquet I have which has the Berne armoury marks was manufactured in Solingen by Gebruder Weyersberg and not sourced from France. I guess they were contracted by the Swiss from Solingen manufactories. I got in touch with the Bernisches Historisches Museum. Quirinus Reichen of the Military Dept supplied me with the details. It is the sword of an infantry orderly 1843 pattern used by Berne and several other Swiss Cantons. The pattern was in use by them for approx 20 years. I erroneously gave the date in a previous post as 1830.
My Regards,
Norman.


P.S. I did have a conversation over 10 years ago with someone at the National Maritime Museum about mistaken identification of some of their items, had a good chat with a lovely lady about shooting the .303 Lee Enfield

I wasn't clear ... enough, Jim. After 1806 the term Briquet did become its actual documented name. But don't give it much notice :shrug:.
What is more noteworthy is that, in the day you produce or find evidence that Paul Storr took off his cufflinks and rolled up his sleeves to cast a brass hilt, you will win a whole case of Drambuie ;) :rolleyes: :D.

G'day Jim,
Here is another example of a set of initials in a cartouche on a brass hilt. In this case it is on a French ANXI light cavalry sabre.

If Paul Storr who was a silversmith was indeed making brass sword hilts, they would most likely be for private purchase officers' swords, rather than mass produced enlisted men's swords.

Cheers,
Bryce

Hi Norman,
I misunderstood in your post #49 when you noted Royal Armouries IX1182 tagged as French but with the Swiss mkg. from Berne and the comment about mistakes.

I understand, the colloquial/pejorative or whatever use of the term briquet became regulation lingo in 1806 after its plethora of meanings began to refer to the general 'type' of these swords.....I hope I have qualified that enough, but I think I get the general drift.

Your prize suggestion of a case of Drambuie is GOOD INCENTIVE!! and I think I will go through a case as I try to wade through this ever building mountain of information.......again I REALLY appreciate you guys' tenacity and patience as we 'try' this case.
Stubborness is a Scottish trait (uh, Norman you agree?) so I continue with my defense of this 'ugly duckling' sword that has rested in my charge for over half century.

Thanks very much Bryce! It does seem that poicons (punches or cartouches or markings or touch marks or whatever the proper term is) appear quite a bit on French swords which seem to have a predominance of brass in this period.

I have the impression that Storr was not yet in his premier stature as a silversmith c. 1794, but was apprenticed and then working with Rundell and Bridge who were working with precious metals and were retailers. Thus they would have been supplying the private purchase officers swords you note.

One point I have been desperately trying to convey is that what I am suggesting is that in a bizarre twist of the conventions of the time in production of hilts, especially in mundane other ranks hangers such as this...Paul Storr MIGHT have produced a number of them in a contract or agreement 'outside the box'.

Perhaps it was a fiendish ploy or prank to imitate the fine hilts for private purchase officers having a silversmiths mark placed in accord with such hilts in a lowly privates common briquet?

As nobody seems to have ever heard of these 'briquets' used by the British army EXCEPT two of the premier sages of arms study in 1962 and 1966 who apparently felt strongly enough in their identification to place these in their books I am left in a total quandry. Myself, as a novice collector in those days 50 years ago, totally believed what they said.........never expecting the identification to be patently dismissed these decades later, even without the Paul Storr dilemma.

I feel strongly that the comments by scholars who have deeply studied the swords of the British army in noting the difficulties and conflicting material in identifying these less documented weapons are well placed.
The deference to accepting the notion that a silversmith would have made such 'lowly' items seems logical, however in the references I have consulted it is noted that at times even these 'specialists' would cross over to make military goods in order to keep busy (referring to 1790s , Mowbray, op. cit.).

Still just feel like there is a good case here, but clearly a lot more research to be done:)

For those interested in this infantry sabres or briquets:

There has been an exhibition in Germany and in Switzerland some years ago where have been on display lots of such sabres of all European countries. Over that there has been a very informative catalogue with 125 pages that is still today a good rendition for those who want to know some more details about this type of arm.

Let me be precious and transfer the original text; you will interpreter it as per your wishes:

And i will even give you some hint. Here is an assessment made by a 'General' (top member) of the world largest French speaking forum of militaria:

Si il n'y a pas d'autres poinçons sur la lame ou la garde il est probable (pour ne pas dire certain !) que ce sabre n'est pas un modèle réglementaire français. Peut-être avait il été fabriqué pour la Garde Nationale ou peut-être est il étranger ...
Je ne connais pas le(s) poinçon(s) PS dans un cartouche rectangulaire.


Meaning as you know:

If there are no other poinçons on the blade or the guard, it is likely (not to say certain!) that this saber is not a French regulation model. Maybe it was made for the National Guard or maybe it's a foreigner ...
I do not know the PS punch (s) in a rectangular cartouche.


I prefer the Portuguese (?) saying: Stubborness only exists if there are two stubborn ;).

.

LOL, well Fernando, you know we have had a stubbornness for many, many years now and quite complete :) But thats how we learn. If everybody agreed on everything, how much testing would get done?

Thank you for this translation, which surely does eliminate this 'briquet' from being French. Could it be British ????:)

I found another book by Wilkinson-Latham, "British Cut & Thrust Weapons", 1971. In this (plate 28), there is another photo of the 'foot artillery hanger' but here it is captioned c.1830.
In this book, there is little text (p.27) but here the descriptions are deeply flawed, "...foot artillery privates, later to be known as 'gunners' were armed with a brass hilted hanger (but here is the rub, it notes plate 27 and 28.....plate 27 is an 1751 infantry hanger!!! nothing to do with artillery!).........which remained their defensive weapon until 1853".

The photo of the 'briquet' in this 1971 book seems virtually identical to the example he shows in his 1966 book (as plate 66) and which has the same identification as foot artillery gunners sword, but states c. 1814.

I then thought to check photo credits, and while in the 1966 book none are shown, but 1971 does, and states 'authors collection'. In the 1971 photo, there is no mention of the possible 'Trotter' affiliation but the sword appears to be the same one.

Going back to the 1966 "British Military Swords" introduction, I felt a most familiar and personally connected description in many ways like my own beginning in collecting which began with British swords as well, and ironically in the year this book was published.

He describes his being fourth generation of the family of Wilkinson Sword Co. and how he acquired a copy of "Sword, Lance and Bayonet" (Ffoulkes & Hopkinson), in the late 1930s just after it was published. He describes his difficulties in collecting as there were many anomalies not covered in this book, which began his own book decades later from his research.

Here he makes a key observation, " ...I would sound a cautionary note on the subject of military effigies, paintings and prints, where I have noticed a tendency to present the subject with the sword hilt not visible. When the hilt is seen, however, full use is made of 'artistic license'".

In his acknowledgements he thanks A. Kennard and W. Reid of the Tower of London; Col. Appleby of the National Army Museum; Capt. Laing of United Services Institution and Commander W.E. May of the National Maritime Museum. He also relied greatly on the huge corpus of notes and records of his father and grandfather's.

While these findings from my original sources for my classification of my briquet clearly present concerns, I wanted to present them here in good faith for the benefit of all of us participating in this discussion.

Obviously Wilkinson'Latham's first and subsequent books are the result of him cataloguing his own collection and trying to present sound references for future collectors and scholars. The eminent panel listed as his consultants are but a few of those he was in touch with on a regular basis, so we must believe that the identification of this sword was soundly familiar.

Wilkinson-Latham, as an ardent collector and research his entire life, would seem likely to have abridged any error or misidentification of the weapons he spent his life researching. The fact that he presented the 'briquet' shown in his first book of 1966 (compiled in over 30 years of research) and then again in 1971, suggests that he felt the classification was correct. It is interesting that his dating moved from 1814 to 1830, which suggests these had remained is use for some time.

His reluctance to place high value on paintings and art work make me wonder if perhaps he knew the Dighton and Hamilton-Smith paintings but did not accept the 'Spanish pattern' type artillery swords as necessarily valid.

There remains the illustration of the briquet as British artillery gunners sword in the late Claude Blair's "European and American Arms" (1962), which was certainly well known to Wilkinson-Latham as well as the author himself. If there would have been disagreement on this, it surely would have been corrected after the publication of the 1966 book. All of these men who were among a very close community of arms scholars and authors were constantly in communication together, as I learned in many years as a member of the Arms & Armour Society in London .

Now, the business with the PS marking and Paul Storr is a much deeper well, and of course, to be continued.

Hi Jim,
I don't think anybody is dismissing your thinking, more trying to root out the truth. The Paul Storr attribution to me is considerably less important than determining whether Briquet type swords were used by the British Army at any time or in any theatre. As far as the 1962/66/71 attribution is concerned, to me the jury is still out as no other subsequent text that I know of backs up their thinking. I am always delighted to find out something new and would be really interested should a new, to me anyway, British Army sidearm come to light. I really hope your quest bears fruit but I am still doubtful. Perhaps an e-mail to the Royal Armouries and/or the Tower Armouries might give a definitive answer.
My Regards,
Norman.

Hi Jim,
https://collections.royalarmouries.o...armouries.html Volume 2 page 295 no images but blade markings noted.
My Regards,
Norman.

Important ...
 

Jim, can you count the cannelures (ribs) on the grip of your briquet; 36, 28 ... or other ?

Hi Fernando,
Looks like 28 to me.
My Regards,
Norman.

Thank you Norman,

The quantity of the French an XI version (1802-1803).
Mind you, this detail does not oblige for a specimen being French. If in fact it represents French regulation, it may as well be reproduced by anyone with casting facilities. I would submit myself to the whipping post if the majority of foreing examples out there are not reproduced using moulds extracted from the (Frenchie) originals. I can not see an 'artist' designing a briquet from his own inspiration and achieve by coincidence a form just like the traditional thing.

Hi Norman, I didnt mean it like that, what meant to say is that I had no idea there was a question of the validity of the identification. BTW, I really like your style in the tenacious research you clearly engage with the sources you have cited. An email to these sources might be useful, but quite honestly I have reservations on the potential for response let alone viable information.
It was hard even in the old days with snail mail.

While the French version discussion is interesting as it reveals the keen similarity to my briquet, which I have contended is British, there is no intention of suggesting it is French. The 'French connection' was nothing more than a comparison used by Robson (1975) in my original posts.

I am trying to think of how I can best word this to explain, my hope has been to show this simple artillery gunner hanger as BRITISH as my original resources classified it in 1966.
Then, with the distinct initials PS in the hilt, that it might possibly be from the silver smith Paul Storr c. 1800 to fulfill a possible contract of a number of these munition grade hangers 'for the cause' .

This is a common design, used by most of the countries in Europe in thier armies at the time and shortly thereafter , and whose design was NOT dreamed up by Paul Storr in an artistic vision, nor was he inspired in one, but CONTRACTED to duplicate this design.
He will have used blades from a cutler, and as he is described, a HILT MAKER would have cast and mounted them on a set NUMBER of swords.
This was NOT a work of art intended for display, but a contracted number of swords supplied as directed by either ordnance, commander or official requesting them.
It was a 'job', and huge volumes of swords were hilted and mounted in this manner OF VARIOUS TYPES FOR VARIOUS REGIMENTS.

Thus far I have not seen anything which suggests the type of hanger which was used by BRITISH foot artillery in 1794 or the years prior to going to the Peninsula. The references to the 'Spanish pattern' sword allege that the term was for its use in the Peninsula, so what was around before that?

G'day Jim,
I don't why this pattern of sword is called the "Spanish" Pattern. They were certainly in use before the Peninsular War. Here is one marked "Osborn". Henry Osborn stopped using this mark when he joined with John Gunby in 1806. Here is another marked Woolley and Deakin, which also dates it to before the Peninsular War.
Cheers,
Bryce

Here is an excerpt of a journal article from the 70's which also sheds some more light on this subject. The authors were calling this sword the "Prussian" pattern sword. I would like to find where the name "Spanish Pattern" came from.
Cheers,
Bryce

Wow! Bryce! This is brilliant!!!!
I have never heard of this article before, but in those days long back, I was focused on other conundrums, not realizing this solitary briquet was a resounding one itself! I thought it was identified as much as it was going to be and my interests were in British cavalry swords.

This material is truly unbelievable and FULLY explains how Wilkinson-Latham came to this British foot artillery description on this briquet. The article here mentions the briquet dilemma beginning with Charles Ffoulkes in his seeing a number of these in the Tower with date 1830, and simply presumed they were British as they were in the Tower!!!

So here's the deal, Wilkinson-Latham's father was close friends with Ffoulkes, and in fact it was he that presented young John with a copy of his 1937 book.
If John was so influenced by Ffoulkes, then quite plausibly this was the source of his own identification of the briquet.

Clearly no true research had been done on these weapons carried by the foot artillery so this seemed a reasonable solution.

When I mentioned the 1971 Wilkinson-Latham book, I noted that the briquet was plate 28, again labeled foot artillery gunners hanger (with the 1830 date that Ffoulkes had seen on the Tower examples). But, most bizarre is plate 27, listed as a foot artillery hanger c. 1760!!!!
I thought this was totally wrong as its a M1751 infantry hanger, even with Samuel Harvey's bushy tail fox!

But right there in this article, its says the foot artillery was carrying the M1751!!!!

Then to the mysterious Prussian pattern, and the brass hilt swords (which seem to be the 'Spanish' pattern') and are (to me) remarkably similar to the so called M1780 light cavalry sword.
As you note, they were in use before the Peninsular war (1807).
Wooley and Deakin ceased as partners in 1803 (I think there are some questions on this date).

Whatever the case, it seems you have soundly resolved the 'British' briquet dilemma, and while a bit disappointed, I am relieved to have the correct answer.
BUT, now what do I do with the PS mystery?
With all the confusion with the swords in this time, it seems there is always the chance that some obscure dealing could have initiated the briquet in an off one off grouping, but to say 'tenuous' would be an understatement :)

At this point, I totally accept that the British briquet is a myth derived from a misperception, apparently by Charles Ffoulkes in the 1930s. That is actually good to know, but NOW.....
Who WAS PS??????????? Was it Storr???? and WHY a briquet?\

The plot thickens here at SWORD MYSTERY THEATER!!!! :)


There goes my case of Drambuie, but I think a dram now.

G'day Jim,
Here is the rest of the article on artillery swords.
Cheers,
Bryce

Bryce,
Thank you so much for adding the rest of this most salient article.
What I find confusing, much as the authors support, is just what was the 'Prussian' pattern? It seems the 'Spanish pattern' was indeed very much of the 'sword bayonet' form, and the Dundas was like the pioneer type swords similar in appearance but with saw back.

It appears to confusion concerning these 'foot artillery' gunners hangers/briquets began with Charles Ffoulkes, the writer on British arms, who saw several of these in the Tower, and presumed them 'British' being in that context. However, as has been noted, not one of these in the form of mine (orig post) reflects any acceptance marks as would be standard with such other ranks weapons.

The apparent assumption was adopted by Claude Blair "European and American Arms" (1962) in a line drawing; from there perpetuated by John Wilkinson-Latham in his book on British military swords (1966). The date presumed with these was 1830, probably based on the fact that the name 'Trotter' is thought to be on the blade. Thomas Trotter was a military outfitter and supplier of swords etc. in 1820s-30.

Returning to Paul Storr. He registered his own mark in 1793, coincidental with the beginnings of hostilities with France, which culminated in the Napoleonic wars in 1803. While he worked for the firm of Rundell & Bridge, who had contracts for the Royal House, George III and his son, the Prince of Wales (later George IV), he wished to keep his own identity and ran his own factory in Soho.
In the early 1790s, the Trotter firm was a prevalent supplier of military supply and materials, who were also situated in Soho.

King George, and his son, were both keen on military matters, and while focused on the elite aspects of cavalry and fashion, were certainly aware of the ever present forboding over the possibility of French invasion. There was a certain bolstering of the military as well as militia type units.
While Rundell & Bridge as well as Storr, were busily fashioning fancy silver wares for the Royal Collections, is it not possible a very limited order of briquets, following French (and Prussian?) design might have been commissioned. We know that George designed and ordered special swords for his own 10th Hussars, the regiment for his son the Prince of Wales.

While this unusual sword, stamped with the PS cartouche (Paul Storr?) in the manner used by other maker of fine sword hilts Francis Thurkle (FT) in the same type square. ....has no acceptance marks.....it seems possible that a short run of such weapons MIGHT have happened. While such 'cartouches' were typically used on wares of precious metal, Thurkle is noted to have used his regardless of the metal used in the object.

While Storr is listed in Bezdek as a 'hilt maker' in addition to his primary functions as silversmith and goldsmith........he does not appear in Southwick, which of course lists makers of silver hilts (as Thurkle does appear).
It is noted that during the wars with France (1793-1815) the 'war effort' reached into all trade and industry, with those businesses extending their efforts and production into the sphere of military supply as required.

Though it would seem to strain the parameters of coincidence that I may have acquired such an item by such an important maker in such mundane circumstances, I will add here that I do have one of the 'special' sabers designed and ordered for the Prince of Wales 10th Hussars c,. 1807, one of the 27 in original order (these never exceeded a total of 70-90 swords by 1821). Is it possible that the Royal House, patrons of Storr, might have placed a special order for these briquets (of which none apparently survive except this one) in the same manner as the rare 10th Hussars sabers.

These circumstances by the fact that there is no identifiable record of this pattern for foot artillery gunners in the dismal records concerning the other ranks for artillery, as well as that these kind of weapons were probably melted down for the brass, suggests the potential rarity of this item. Naturally this idea is admittedly fanciful, but in my view warrants further scrutiny.

I look forward to ideas, observations, and of course rebuttals to further discuss.